Hmm, not sure if I like that. Completely de-values pole position and if that is to scale it would have starting in 4th/5th place the same as starting in 2nd place currently. You would also get regularly cars going 4-5 wide into turn 1 which would be mayhem.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I do not see how this devalues pole position. The driver still starts up front and with the same gap back to second as presently practiced. What this system does is allow a third car a much better opportunity to run amok up front.

Pole position just means the driver starts up front, there's nothing sacred or holy about it.

But I do not like this system. It will bunch the cars up even more at the start, and since many of today's Formula One drivers sometimes seem incapable of handling intense traffic, a lot more accidents will happen.

Looking at the larger picture, Liberty are slowly realizing that Formula One has a long ways to go before it's truly exciting racing and constant action. Trust me, with Liberty the days of mind-numbing processions are history. What you guys should be agonizing over is whether Liberty get the FIA to use cautions and the safety car with the frequency of Indycar, or worse yet, NASCAR. Three laps to go, a spotter saw a haze, or maybe something on the track, throw the caution, bunch the field up for an exciting finish.

Personally, I would not be concerned that any changes will devalue or tarnish Formula One. It is already very tarnished by the politics and questionable conduct by many at times. It is just a race, it is just one of many races held each Sunday. Formula One has already sunk to the status of being the WWE of the motorsports world. This is an artificial construct, with bespoke cars running on bespoke tracks adorned by advertising, driven by young men also festooned with advertising.

I do not see how this devalues pole position. The driver still starts up front and with the same gap back to second as presently practiced. What this system does is allow a third car a much better opportunity to run amok up front.

Pole position just means the driver starts up front, there's nothing sacred or holy about it.

But I do not like this system. It will bunch the cars up even more at the start, and since many of today's Formula One drivers sometimes seem incapable of handling intense traffic, a lot more accidents will happen.

Looking at the larger picture, Liberty are slowly realizing that Formula One has a long ways to go before it's truly exciting racing and constant action. Trust me, with Liberty the days of mind-numbing processions are history. What you guys should be agonizing over is whether Liberty get the FIA to use cautions and the safety car with the frequency of Indycar, or worse yet, NASCAR. Three laps to go, a spotter saw a haze, or maybe something on the track, throw the caution, bunch the field up for an exciting finish.

Personally, I would not be concerned that any changes will devalue or tarnish Formula One. It is already very tarnished by the politics and questionable conduct by many at times. It is just a race, it is just one of many races held each Sunday. Formula One has already sunk to the status of being the WWE of the motorsports world. This is an artificial construct, with bespoke cars running on bespoke tracks adorned by advertising, driven by young men also festooned with advertising.

BIB-I was going by the picture where it looks like the guy in 2nd is just behind Pole's front wing. That's not like it is currently at all but maybe I shouldn't have judged it by the pic?.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I do not see how this devalues pole position. The driver still starts up front and with the same gap back to second as presently practiced. What this system does is allow a third car a much better opportunity to run amok up front.

Pole position just means the driver starts up front, there's nothing sacred or holy about it.

But I do not like this system. It will bunch the cars up even more at the start, and since many of today's Formula One drivers sometimes seem incapable of handling intense traffic, a lot more accidents will happen.

Looking at the larger picture, Liberty are slowly realizing that Formula One has a long ways to go before it's truly exciting racing and constant action. Trust me, with Liberty the days of mind-numbing processions are history. What you guys should be agonizing over is whether Liberty get the FIA to use cautions and the safety car with the frequency of Indycar, or worse yet, NASCAR. Three laps to go, a spotter saw a haze, or maybe something on the track, throw the caution, bunch the field up for an exciting finish.

Personally, I would not be concerned that any changes will devalue or tarnish Formula One. It is already very tarnished by the politics and questionable conduct by many at times. It is just a race, it is just one of many races held each Sunday. Formula One has already sunk to the status of being the WWE of the motorsports world. This is an artificial construct, with bespoke cars running on bespoke tracks adorned by advertising, driven by young men also festooned with advertising.

BIB-I was going by the picture where it looks like the guy in 2nd is just behind Pole's front wing. That's not like it is currently at all but maybe I shouldn't have judged it by the pic?.

I was the one in the wrong. The current grid has each car almost an entire car's length behind the next.

Fine on the grid. Its at the first corner that concerns me. These cars are ridiculously wide anyway, and there is so much sticking out waiting to be knocked off the pits will be full on lap 2. Other than that, a fast starter from behind is going to have little chance of getting through without a pile up.

Bad plan

Also, Blinkey, those are the narrow old cars too, they are 2mtr wide now. Plus tyres up from 325 wide to 405 (this will be times 3 cars wide)

What? so when they loose 9 at the first corner there are still enough to run the race restart?

Yep it's all about the thrills and spills yeeha!

They could have 4 separate mini races with 15 min between each (more time for adverts) and a rush to get the cars fixed and back out for the next part. Scantily clad maidens could walk the track collecting shards and phone in vote for the best retreval action, and a prise for the most shards of the same colour, sorry color.

The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.

I'm not sure it devalues pole. It's still an advantage to start up front. But we often complain about drivers leading from pole to finish so if it does allow more competition at the start then how is that a bad thing?

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.

More or less, but do you think it would be too inconsistent and non-committal to try it at say a race during the season?

Why not trial it in F2, why does F1 have to be the guinea pig, also the majority of us knew that the new qualifying system they tried last year would be rubbish, it made F1 look stupid, I was hoping that LM would be a step up from Bernie.

Wouldn't this just maintain the general grid order from the start. There would be no room for the fast starter on row 3 hitting the front. In addition a bad start would leave no room to avoid the slow moving car in front of it resulting in a "Tour de France" style pile up.

The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.

Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.

Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

So you are expecting the drivers just to be less aggressive, good luck with that.

Then you compare with Indy car which is a controlled by a 2 by 2 rolling start on a much wider track going into a near flat out corner, as opposed to standing starts which can be much varied with cars starting 3 wide on a much narrower track and then having to brake sharply.

F1 drivers shouldering responsibility and accountability, good luck with that one too.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.

More or less, but do you think it would be too inconsistent and non-committal to try it at say a race during the season?

Why not trial it in F2, why does F1 have to be the guinea pig, also the majority of us knew that the new qualifying system they tried last year would be rubbish, it made F1 look stupid, I was hoping that LM would be a step up from Bernie.

From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

Hate this idea but I encourage LM to keep thinking of new ones and floating ideas out there.

But kill this one with fire.

More or less, but do you think it would be too inconsistent and non-committal to try it at say a race during the season?

Why not trial it in F2, why does F1 have to be the guinea pig, also the majority of us knew that the new qualifying system they tried last year would be rubbish, it made F1 look stupid, I was hoping that LM would be a step up from Bernie.

From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

I actually think it might have wiped out half the grid if not more with the cars being so tightly compacted.

I like it. Anything that makes the sport potentially more entertaining is good. We'll never know if it works if it isn't given a chance.

lamo wrote:

Completely de-values pole position and if that is to scale it would have starting in 4th/5th place the same as starting in 2nd place currently.

Currently being the important word. It doesn't completely de-value pole position, because the guy who qualified first still starts at the front. Relatively they may be slightly closer together, and 4th and 5th may be the same as starting 2nd currently, but there is still a ranking and an advantage based on speed on Saturday.

The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.

Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

So you are expecting the drivers just to be less aggressive, good luck with that.

Then you compare with Indy car which is a controlled by a 2 by 2 rolling start on a much wider track going into a near flat out corner, as opposed to standing starts which can be much varied with cars starting 3 wide on a much narrower track and then having to brake sharply.

F1 drivers shouldering responsibility and accountability, good luck with that one too.

The Indy 500 starts 3 wide.

I guess it's folly for me to expect Formula One drivers to act more responsible and respectful. As a product of their behavior, I have very little respect for most drivers.

I think it’s a bad idea simply because there’s not enough cars to make it worthwhile. The proposed drawing in the OP would mean there’s 8 rows.

Ramp up the field to 30 cars, then we’ll talk

There are two solutions available straight off the shelf! At one point, Formula 2 cars and drivers joined Formula 1. What is to stop the FIA from allowing this now? If the difference between lap times is deemed too great, then cut down on the F1 downforce again - we have all clearly seen it isn't worth allowing all this downforce, as the drivers still can't keep it on the black stuff.And if the FIA don't want to allow F2 to join F1, then they could allow the reserve drivers into the race in older F1 cars. My point about this year's cars would make the 2017 cars an exception, with 2018 now probably an issue too.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

The cars are too wide for this. You will have absolute chaos with this type of starting grid in F1. Works like a charm for MotoGP though.

5 abreast into the first corner mayhem, if F1 is that boring why did they buy it?

Also I believe the grid is spread like it is for safety reasons, Ronnie Peterson got killed in a start line crash, so we fit the horrible halos because of safety and then revert back in time when F1 was less safe.

Ronnie Peterson died because the field was a jumbled mess. The cars were "sort of" two by two, but no one came to a complete halt, they did not have the lights system of today but rather some guy waving a flag. It was not a question of too many cars, it was a disorganized and chaotic start.

These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? About time they proved it, by just navigating dense traffic. They can make it work in a *cough cough* "lesser" class at Indy. Yes, it does make a driver's life more interesting, but a 3 wide grid would force all drivers to be a little smarter and temper their aggression.

Let us not treat these drivers like fragile and helpless children but rather adults who have immense talent and should be capable of shouldering responsibility and accountability.

So you are expecting the drivers just to be less aggressive, good luck with that.

Then you compare with Indy car which is a controlled by a 2 by 2 rolling start on a much wider track going into a near flat out corner, as opposed to standing starts which can be much varied with cars starting 3 wide on a much narrower track and then having to brake sharply.

F1 drivers shouldering responsibility and accountability, good luck with that one too.

The Indy 500 starts 3 wide.

I guess it's folly for me to expect Formula One drivers to act more responsible and respectful. As a product of their behavior, I have very little respect for most drivers.

But it's not exactly a corner they approach though is it? Its a constant radius constant width curve with at least 3 lanes usable around it and a full low lane to escape into. And No I do not want to see corners like that in F1

The other part I agree with. They would soon be sorted out if they drove like that on the road.

I like it. Anything that makes the sport potentially more entertaining is good. We'll never know if it works if it isn't given a chance.

I don't agree with this. I don't think we should try just about anything just because it could potentially make the sport more entertaining. Look at the new qualifying format introduced last year. It could potentially have brought more entertainment but the reality of it was that it was a poorly conceived idea that wasn't well thought through - and as a result it was an absolute disaster and got canned after two races.

I mean, what are you going to say if this results in a huge pile-up with multiple drivers injured? "Well, it's good that we tried"?

No, things should be well thought through, the chance on improvement must be deemed very high and the added risk factor must be acceptable. This idea doesn't look like it passes both criteria.

From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

I'm not convinced it is to scale. I think the plan is for 3-2-3 formation and that is the only plan, the gap between each hasn't been determined. I'd guess that there is still roughly a car's length between positions, there is just less width between them.

From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

I'm not convinced it is to scale. I think the plan is for 3-2-3 formation and that is the only plan, the gap between each hasn't been determined. I'd guess that there is still roughly a car's length between positions, there is just less width between them.

There's a thought. Less width between the cars reduces the opportunity (gap) for someone further back making a brilliant launch sweeping between the cars to overtake. That may offset the perceived benefit of this system.

From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

I'm not convinced it is to scale. I think the plan is for 3-2-3 formation and that is the only plan, the gap between each hasn't been determined. I'd guess that there is still roughly a car's length between positions, there is just less width between them.

There's a thought. Less width between the cars reduces the opportunity (gap) for someone further back making a brilliant launch sweeping between the cars to overtake. That may offset the perceived benefit of this system.

Agreed, I had the same thought. Even if you get a decent launch, you'll have nowhere to launch in to. We'll get some nice jossling between the front 3, but other than that I think this will actually prevent some of the braver starts.